Category talk:LGBT individuals
Move As far as I remember, there are no transsexual characters in Buffy. Suggest moving to Category:GLB individuals. --Dragonclaws(talk) 07:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Delete I propose deleting this category because it seems in bad taste to categorize people (even fictional characters) by their sexual preference. Surely no one is planning on creating categories for other sexualities (straight, asexual, etc.) Besides, several of the characters listed probably do not belong. It seems like any subtle implication was enough for inclusion ... some of which were clearly jokes. Anyway, my 2¢. DinoSlider 00:54, January 23, 2011 (UTC) *I agree, I mean that little faerie was nice to fake-Buffy and then it's label as LGBT, it overcomplicates things. i don't really care either way but, deleting it would make sense. Millsnj09 04:05, January 23, 2011 (UTC) *I'm in favor of deletion. It seems like a weird thing to categorize since it seems unlikely someone's actually going to search for it on the wiki. We'll probably be just as well off without it.--OzzMan 06:20, January 23, 2011 (UTC) Actually, homosexuality is one of the themes in the Buffyverse - not on the same level of feminism or postmodern morality -, thats why I created the category after much consideration. I chose to employ the LGBT term (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transexual) to keep up with the accepted terminology. This has nothing to do with taste. As for the fairy, she had a thing for Buffy and wanted to deposit her eggs in her inner ear.--Gonzalo84 07:23, January 23, 2011 (UTC) In the case of Angel and Spike, they hinted at it. And it was confirmed by Joss himself.--Gonzalo84 07:27, January 23, 2011 (UTC) I know it's not intended to be in bad taste, and i'm sure a lot of other wiki's do it but... considering what Buffy is about... i don't know, seems weird to me, that's just my oppinion. Millsnj09 07:42, January 23, 2011 (UTC) They hinted at having had sex with each other, not necessarily being bisexual. They were deviants morally, there's no reason to think that their sexualities weren't similarly flexible. Plus, you spend 100 some years with someone, it's certainly likely that you'd be intimate with them at some point in that time. Yes, Joss confirmed they had sex, but not that they were bisexual. It was confirmed that Buffy had sex with Satsu and explicitly stated that she wasn't lesbian or bisexual. It was about the emotional connection, not the sexuality. I'm sure Angel and Spike can be given the exact same philosophical leeway.--OzzMan 07:49, January 23, 2011 (UTC) true, performing a homosexual or bisexual act does not nessasarily mean someone is. I think that gets confused a lot on this sorts of sites. Buffy slept with Satsu, but she's not gay or bisexual. it's just a confusing category which leads into numerous other debates. i vote to get rid of it. and end the confusion. Millsnj09 08:01, January 23, 2011 (UTC) The inclusions of Clem, Darla, Drusilla, and Spike are the most questionable in my mind. Case in point: On Clem's character page, it says "In the episode First Date it was implied that he might be gay." because during the "gay me up" scene Buffy teases Xander about the possibility of attracting male demons when Dawn laughingly throws out Clem as a possibility. If the category stays, then it should be restricted to those "confirmed" to belong. DinoSlider 17:23, January 23, 2011 (UTC) :'Don't delete': The gay-positive nature of the Whedon shows is one of their most important features. I agree there may be overcategorisation, but let's be serious; no harm in categorising Nostroyev, for example. What do people mean "bad taste"? It's not in bad taste. That's just a ridiculous concept in itself. It's *about* these characters.Liam Mars 18:02, April 4, 2011 (UTC) ::Ridiculous concept? There's no need to be derogatory. I simply believe it is inappropriate to categorize individuals as LGBT when there are no categories for heterosexual, asexual, or any other similar category. They seem to be "singled out." It gets worse when characters are seemingly miscategorized. Besides, the concept doesn't really even apply to all demon species. DinoSlider 03:24, April 5, 2011 (UTC) ::I'm with DinoSlider on this: Only having one sexuality category is limiting, even if, as you so rightly stated, Whedon's work is very alternate preference-positive, particularly when characters not confirmed be in this category are being added to it. --OzzMan 17:45, April 6, 2011 (UTC) :::It's not encyclopedically interesting to note heterosexuals when it's encyclopedically fascinating to have a category that unites a social group, their representation in the medium, and allows for a quick contrast between say, the portrayal of the men and that of the women. "Singled out"? The gays in this case aren't real people being singled out by the Stasi or Gestapo, they're fictional characters. It's academically interesting. It's socially interesting. Within the show, it forms part of the metaphor. It would be a bit like saying that we shouldn't categorise LGBT characters on the Marvel Wiki, where clearly the intersection between gay storylines and mutant storylines is a wonderfully rich topic, as it is in the Buffy universe. "LGBT" is a useful group; to divide into "heterosexual", "asexual" etc. categories would defeat the purpose because we wouldn't have a category which deals with the social experience in the way that Real Media comments on. Categories like this are also used by journalists when writing articles as a quick and exhaustive resource for the more explicit queer screen representations in a show (the ambiguous or metaphorical ones obviously notwithstanding). I cannot voice stronger dismay at the desire to de-gay the category / neuter categorization efficacy.Liam Mars 01:18, May 6, 2011 (UTC)